Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of commentary online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
Here at the Minnesota history desk, we’ve been gratified by the reports of our old friends in the State Capitol basement during the long, slow buildup to whatever Gov. Tim Walz will soon say about his political intentions in 2026.
Minnesotans don’t yet know whether the DFL governor is running for a third term. But it’s been hard for them not to have heard a reminder this summer that only one Minnesota governor — Rudy Perpich — served longer than eight years. He was elected twice, but also had previously served two years of Wendell Anderson’s second term, after Anderson made himself a U.S. senator at the end of 1976 and Lt. Gov. Perpich succeeded him.
When Perpich offered the voters four more years of his service in 1990, the offer was rather resoundingly rejected — a fact that is sometimes mentioned as a cautionary note to Walz.
The history desk is tempted to digress into a recitation of the oddities of the tumultuous 1990 election, which would more than fill this column, but not today. Instead, here’s a question that has landed on this desk and refuses to be pushed aside during these watchful days:
Might Minnesota’s long tradition of short gubernatorial terms have been beneficial in maintaining this state’s storied political dynamism and high voter participation?
In other words: Have short gubernatorial stays been good for us?